Why More Nonbelievers Are Openly Identifying

It's not unusual to hear commentators, especially religious conservatives, dismiss secular activism by citing numbers, pointing out that only one or two percent of Americans identify as atheists.

Though technically correct, such numbers only tell half the story.

The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS)—probably the most comprehensive study of American religious demographics—confirms that only about 1.6 percent of Americans identify as atheist or agnostic. This may seem like an insignificant group, but even just 1.6 percent outnumbers the population of American Mormons (1.4 percent), Jews (1.2), Episcopalians (1.1), Muslims (0.6), and many other groups. Much more importantly, however, we should realize that the 1.6 percent figure is deceiving, because ARIS also shows that the actual number of nonbelievers is much higher.

We see this when we compare the ARIS numbers relating identity to the corresponding ARIS numbers for religious belief. That is, although just 1.6 percent of Americans identify as atheist or agnostic, only 81.6 percent of the overall population affirms a belief in God. (Some 69.5 percent said they believe in a personal God, and 12.1 percent in a more vague "higher power.") Thus, 18.4 percent of Americans—almost one in five—do not claim a belief in God.

This inconsistency between identity and belief leads to the inescapable conclusion that millions of Americans, despite their disbelief, simply do not feel comfortable openly identifying as nonbelievers. The "atheist" identity is so stigmatized that even most atheists avoid the label.

The numbers can be analyzed and debated, but there is no escaping the clear disconnect between identity and belief. One could argue, for example, that some of the 18.4 percent who do not affirm God-belief are nevertheless believers (since about one-third of them refused to answer the question). But even assuming that all of those who "refused" are believers (highly unlikely), we are still left with over 12 percent who either affirmatively state disbelief or who are agnostic, a number incompatable with the mere 1.6 percent who openly identify as such.

What nonbelievers are increasingly discovering, however, is that their reluctance to openly identify as secular only plays into the hand of the religious right. By not standing openly as nonbelievers, via the identity of atheist, agnostic, humanist, skeptic, freethinker, or some other identifier that clearly places them outside the umbrella of believers, they are creating the appearance of unanimity on the question of theism: Of course, everyone believes in God, right?

This, in turn, fuels the engine of the religious right, for if there is virtual unanimity on the issue of God, nobody can claim authority easier than those who cling to traditional religion most ardently and most visibly. Oh sure, one can argue that Jesus was a liberal, but the argument is being made on the religious right's home field, that of traditional theism, so the game is over before you start.

This doesn't mean that believers can't fight against the religious right. Obviosuly, if you happen to be a believer and you oppose the political agenda of the religious right, make your arguments. But those who are in fact skeptical of theistic religion are increasingly discovering the importance of identifying openly, of humbly suggesting that claims of theistic belief convey no moral authority and should carry no weight in public discourse.

Today, secular identity can be asserted easily, even by simply utilizing the "religious preference" category on social media to let friends and family know about one's secularity. By casually stating "atheist," "humanist," "agnostic," or even "none" on their Facebook profiles, for example, millions in recent years have helped normalize religious skepticism and challenge the notion that "everyone" conforms to traditional belief.

Some go even further, using branding mechanisms such as the Darwin fish, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the scarlet "A" (pictured, initiated by The Out Campaign) to convey their secular worldview in a public way. When you see these items on someone's profile, you know they are making a statement: this person has little use for conservative religion, supernaturalism, and superstition.

In recent years, the secular movement has learned from the gay rights movement the importance of identity politics. A group cannot gain acceptance when its members are closeted, accepting marginalization. This partly explains the success of last month's Reason Rally in Washington, where thousands of seculars took to the National Mall.

As the movement gains momentum we can expect more identity-based activism, more reminders from the secular community that nonbelievers are part of the American landscape. Seculars are demanding recognition, speaking out against religious-based public policy, and opposing the vilification of secularity, and they are finding that "coming out" is a powerful means of achieving these ends. It's unlikely that they will stop until open atheists, like open gays and lesbians, are routinely being elected to office.

There's no way that only 1.6 percent of Americans are Atheists. It is much higher and it will continue to grow.
Information is all over the place and in a couple of generations Americans will loose this emotional attachment with make believe deities. Scriptures written thousands of years old that were edited durning Dark Ages will become far less relevant.
If most of these so called believers actually read the silly Bible they cringe IMO.

As a Christian I am sick of being lumped into a political and intellectual category based on my personal religious beliefs. I have some "conservative values" but these have nothing to do with my religious faith and many of my values would be considered to fall far outside of the "religious right." Just as the numbers of atheists have been downplayed and the persona of an "atheist" painted with a close minded brush, many, many Christians have been painted with a sweeping brush of political and intellectual assumption that is simply false and statistically misrepresented by those who find it easier to view all Christians as intolerant or ignorant. The intolerance we are assumed to have towards non-believers or people of other faith is now being tossed right back by these groups to the point where it is considered posh and intellectually superior to refer to Christian faith as "superstition" and make-believe". It is my understanding that movements like gay rights and now atheist movements are meant to increase tolerance for a variety of beliefs and practices, not to trash the existing beliefs of others. How is attacking my intelligence based on my religion any less close minded than attacking the morality of a gay person based on their sexuality? I believe in the rights and freedoms of all people to live without persecution. I believe in gay marriage, I believe in separation of church and state, I believe in scientific discovery, I believe in evolution, I believe in God, and I believe in the possibility of a world where atheists and Christians respect each other enough to refrain from harsh judgments, political or otherwise . You are not a "bad" or "immoral" person for not believing in God and on the same token I am not ignorant for believing in God nor do I automatically wish to oppress non believers with my "right wing political agenda". It would be really cool if you represented the movement towards greater tolerance of atheism without being so intolerant yourself. I agree that conservative values directly based on religion have no place in political policy making and am glad this is being challenged but perhaps you should consider that calling someone else's beliefs superstitious nonsense has no place in a movement designed to increase acceptance for your own.

Absolutely agree with you. I'm allied with The Christian Left - though I can't believe in the divinity of Christ, I admire and respect the historical person and what he taught. And I admire and respect thoughtful people of faith like you. On either side, bigotry and belittling have no place in civil discourse.

Anyone implying that Atheists are close minded isn’t using their head. If Atheists were close minded they never would have taken the time to really look into the “religion thing” and realize that it’s silly.

They would also go through life believing in deities, immaculate conceptions, virgin births and resurrections. They would think that when they talk to the creator of the universe that “He” actually listens…

I realize that many Christians are just normal, harmless people who believe because it is convenient to do.

Just step outside and try to look at things all from a non-believer’s point of view.

Pretend that the so-called “majority” of people believe in Zeus and Greek mythology. No there’s no proof that it’s real but they all tell you that they have faith that it is real. When they talk to Zeus he listens…

Get it? Scary…

And remember, intelligent design is a whole other subject. Many minds far greater than I have no clue as to “WHY” and don’t completely rule out intelligent design. But most of these great minds regard religion as silly.

And these great minds are the ones who brought us the everyday conveniences we enjoy today. We’d still be in the Dark Ages if it weren’t for these great minds.

Anonymous, I sharply disagree with any atheist/humanist (I prefer the latter term) who, as you say, paints all Christians with a broad brush. But it would be easier to distinguish varieties of Christians if the more accepting ones didn't sit silent while the bigoted far right claims to represent all Christians. It's good to hear from you here, but it would be more valuable if you spoke out in public in opposition to the hate of the extremists within your religion. And yes, I do speak out when extreme atheists claim to represent me.

You know why there are so many types of Christians? Over 300 estimated.

Because like ALL religions it is made up by men and they just can't seem to agree with each other...

If there was one AND ONLY ONE religion that ALL cultures since the beginning of time agreed to people of faith would have something to stand on.
If there was a personal god that created people why would he leave us guessing all these years?
It wouldn't be that hard to turn the WHOLE world around. Come on God, really show us that you exist so these believers can remove the word “faith” from their rhetoric and make the non-nelievers believe.

You call for tolerance and say atheists are not 'immoral' for being non-believers, yet, as your Bible pretty clearly states, most Christian denominations believe that atheists will suffer eternal torment and torture. Not only will they, they also deserve it.

How is an atheist supposed to respect that opinion? How is that a basis from which to ask them to be tolerant of your views?

Thank you. That is the point exactly. How can I respect someone who is clearly deluding themselves and showing their intollerance of others? I can respect someone's right to their opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to respect the opinion itself. Religion has been given too much leway, and it's considered bad form to confront people on their beliefs. So tired of that. But then I'm supposed to respect people who come to my door trying to convert me? They can't have it both ways.

No respectable atheist thinks all believers are stupid, anyway. How can that be when the vast majority of people believe in a higher power of some sort? I know many more theists than I do atheists, and no one in my family or many in my group of friends are atheists. That would mean that I would consider the majority of people I surround myself with as stupid. Now THAT would be stupid. You can be intelligent and believe in god, but I can still consider you wrong, and that you're most probably deluding yourself. That doesn't mean I think theists are stupid.

Anonymous wrote:"It is my understanding that movements like gay rights and now atheist movements are meant to increase tolerance for a variety of beliefs and practices, not to trash the existing beliefs of others. How is attacking my intelligence based on my religion any less close minded than attacking the morality of a gay person based on their sexuality?"

Because your understanding is wrong.

I claim the right to trash the beliefs of others where they are stupid, ignorant, bigoted, have no evidence to back them up, or have any of the other many faults that go hand-in-hand with religion.

Attacking your beliefs is less close minded than attacking a gay person because you can change your beliefs. And I am attacking your IDEAS, not your person!

As Denis points out in his response, morality and intellect are both human faculties so it is absolutely an attack on my person to call my beliefs "stupid." The fact that beliefs can be changed does nothing to dispute the pointed comparison of attacking gays on the basis of morality because morals can also technically be changed. By your logic, gays have no right to be offended because people only attack their moral views not their person.

It honestly boggles my mind that calling another person's beliefs "stupid", "ignorant", and "bigoted" is acceptable social conduct in today's "politically correct" society. If I were to start calling those who believe in a Muslim God terrorists, I can only imagine the social backlash! Calling those who believe in a Christian God bigots though is perfectly acceptable because "truth matters"? Get over yourself. Perception is reality and so a belief in God or denouncement of a belief in God is a personal truth. Truth does matter. Your truth matters and......wait for it...my truth matters too! Really it does. My "close minded" truth is ironically just as important as your atheist beliefs if you really want to live in an "open minded" society, which I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you do. I will assume we all can agree that an open minded society (one that allows for the non-ridiculed expression of all beliefs, even if they make little sense to us ) is desirable just as long as expression of beliefs is not oppressive to others, I have no desire to oppress. I am starting to believe that perhaps you wish to oppress your atheist beliefs upon me, however, as if science itself is somehow at stake unless I denounce my faith. Every time I leave church I must be one step closer to forgetting that gravity exists and likely to walk off a cliff when scientific reality escapes my shriveled religious brain. Please o wise atheist...save me before society goes to make believe hell in a hand basket.

Come on fellow humanoid, I don't wish to make my truth public policy and I respect that it is not your truth. I am simply asking that I not be called an ignorant bigot on the basis of my religious beliefs using asinine logic that those beliefs assume other personal "faults that go hand-in-hand with religion." Terrorism is a fault that goes hand-in-hand with Islamic religion and yet most people who practice Islam are not terrorists. Terrorism is an extreme interpretation of the Koran where allegorical writings are manipulated into literal interpretations that fit an extremist agenda. It is the same with Christian religion. Certain Christian extremists use allegorical biblical stories as literal interpretations fitting of their political agenda. This is NOT the norm.

Because our country used to share more conservative values aside from any religious practice, it is mistakenly assumed atheists are just now breaking free of some oppressive religious regime when in reality your role in social change isn't quite so valiant. Our entire society has rather been for quite some time moving towards greater acceptance of personal differences and many Christians have played equal roles in that movement. My Catholic school teacher gave a lesson in third grade about how America should be viewed not as a "melting pot" but as a "mixed salad" where people may blend and still be valued for their differences including religious difference. In reality societies do blend and assimilation is not wrong in and of itself but the message of respecting social, cultural, and personal differences is a good one and is not something that can only be promoted by proclaimed intellectually superior atheists. If you cannot look past my religion which is only one aspect of my persona ,and still respect me as an intelligent person capable of separating faith beliefs from scientific beliefs perhaps it is you that is a bigot. Im Sorry, does that offend you? Let me rephrase... you are not a bigot, you are just a person with stupid, bigoted ideas pertaining to basic religious psychology. Is that less offensive?

would say that your xian belief is not xian, that you can not have both ways, live and let live a xian faith also.

You are not trying to legislate xian right morals so rather than painting yourself with the pity brush (Oh poor me) how about stepping up and work stop this extreme Calvinist movement and keep people working in your religions name towards the Theocracy they wish to form.

As an intelligent man understand who we are directing stand towards and understand if they get there way your religious position would be considered heresy (it has happened before and can happen again).

Your quote
"It is my understanding that movements like gay rights and now atheist movements are meant to increase tolerance for a variety of beliefs and practices, not to trash the existing beliefs of others."
It is the "beliefs of others" (the intolerance) that created the need for these movements. The trashing of the existing religious position is what is needed to change those positions, but you are are smart and already knew that.

As to tolerance towards xians as an atheist, polls show that among xians we get less respect than any other group in the US. How much tolerance should I show these people?

Religion is by it's nature superstition, all of it, not just everyone but yours, all of it. Call it what you believe, call it what ever you want but it is superstition. You have a problem with the superstition label and I understand I would have a problem also, so I gave up superstition, even your version of it.

The more strident the yelling of the fundamentalists, the more thinking people question this Blind Faith they are supposed to embrace.
It is a natural evolution, our relationship with God and those who don't want to change are fighting real hard to keep their place in the world (and heaven).

So, nonbelievers are becoming more vocal and public because they were FORCED to by the "rise" of the aggressive, intolerant Religious Right, eh?

I recall the movie "Murder by Death," in which a Charlie Chan-esque detective played by Peter Sellers observed, "An interesting theory. Only one thing wrong with theory: is STUPID!"

If you want to understand WHY your contention is stupid, ask yourself a few questions:

1) Was America more or less religious in 1956 than it is today?
2) Did religious conservatives make up a larger or smaller percentage of the population in 1956 than it does today?
3) Now the big question... was there any kind of large-scale, organized Religious Right in 1956?
4) And, importantly, which party did religious conservatives usually vote for in 1956?

The answer are... America was far more religious in 1956 Far more Americans ambraced "traiditonal Christian family values" in 1956. And yet, there was NOTHING worth calling a Religious Right in 1956! Moreover, practivally ALL the people you'd identify as Christian conservatives voted a straight Democratic ticket in 1956.

In other words, the idea that a massive uprising of the secular LEft was caused by the Religious Right is NONSENSE. In 1956, virtually EVERYBODY, religious or not, accepted certain basic ground rules regarding morality. In 1956, even the most liberal Democrats would have laughed at the idea of gay marriage. Even the most liberal Democrats accepted the need for restrictions on abortion and pornography. Hence, there was no NEED for a "Religious Right." And the people you'd have regarded as fundamnetalist Christians were therefore free to vote their pocketbooks... which meant that most of them were enthusiastic New Deal Democrats! Hence, Bible-thumping Baptists in Mississippi voted overwhelmingly for liberal Adlai Stevenson!

So, now yu have to ask yourself... how did the Democrats LOSE their msot loyal followers? Why was there any need for a Religious Right to form in the Seventies?

You know the answer as well as I do, even if you'd prefer not to admit it. The reality is, the Religious Right didn't start the ongoing culture wars. The religious Right was a reaction to an aggressive, secular Left that implemented its own agenda by stealth, mainly through the courts.

1956 was during the great big commie scare. It was accepted as fact (because of the secular nature of powerful communist dictatorships) that Christianity was part of the American way forward. Implying that you were anything *but* a Christian was a good way to get yourself put on Mr. McCarthy's list. Americans believed in God. Dirty commies? Not so much. This is also the reason for the addition of, 'In God We Trust,' and, 'Under God,' to our paper money and Pledge of Allegiance. It was our way of setting ourselves apart from the others.

Also, our political parties were extremely different back then. The Republicans were more like today's Democrats and vice versa. This is why so many people who grew up Democrat during the fifties and sixties have moved over to the Republican side of the playing field.

As far as your questions and the conclusion you feel that they come to...

Yes, the US was more religious in the 50s. I don't think you want to argue for this being a better time for us, however. Remember that black americans and women were treated like second class citizens (with those in power often using religious texts as a reason for this. The White Man's Burden is still alive and kicking!) and in some places, you could still be criminally charged for engaging in homosexual activities.

In this kind of atmosphere then (remember: Everybody's religious or they're a dirty commie) it's really not that shocking that there wasn't any kind of Religious Right. Who on earth would they be opposing? No body was going to try an push agendas that wouldn't have melded with the religious conservatives of the time. Not when it could mean being blacklisted and possibly jailed (maybe even worse).

The seventies, then, were a time of huge social upheaval. McCarthyism had turned a lot of people off to harsh, black and white doctrines. Women were pushing for more power and social standing, blacks were too. Add to that the monumental Roe vs. Wade trial and you suddenly have an atmosphere that left the religious conservatives in our country feeling scared. The Democrats began to throw out more progressive ideas, started winning the hearts of the younger generations, while the Republicans clung to their religious beliefs and agendas and managed to maintain the conservative vote. It's only escalated since then. The more personal freedoms we fight for, the harder and meaner the religious right becomes.

Even if the Religious Right is nothing more than a reaction to progression, I think that's fine. With each year that passes, more people wake up to the delusion that is social conservatism in this country and social conservatives, themselves, get louder. They'll realize one day that all they're doing is cornering themselves with hateful rhetoric.

What you say is true only if you consider 1 factor, in this case the number of religious conservatives. What you ignore is the fact that stigma against being an open atheist was also far more significant. The social pressures and lack of community meant that to be an open atheist was to be ostracized. Gradually the Secularists pushed out the religious dogma as law and Atheists started coming out. The open ones are now the basis for growth, because more and more people are realizing that they are not alone.

I agree with Annonymous who responded to you below regarding the Red Scare, and I would like to add that you show a complete misunderstanding of political science from that time. The modern Democratic and Republican parties where there is a fairly distinct left/right division didn't begin until the Civil Rights Act was signed. When this act was signed, LBJ stated, "We've just lost the South." Up until this time, Dixie Democrats had a loose alliance with the New Deal Democrats. After this Act was passed, the Southern constituency splintered off and allied themselves with the old Republican Party of Hoover. This party represented the monied, capitalistic interests of the elite. Hence the modern Republican Party was born.

Moreover, when you say, "EVERYBODY, religious or not, accepted certain basic ground rules regarding morality. In 1956, even the most liberal Democrats would have laughed at the idea of gay marriage. Even the most liberal Democrats accepted the need for restrictions on abortion and pornography. Hence, there was no NEED for a "Religious Right," you are generalizing again.

No, not "EVERYBODY" accepted basic ground rules regarding morality. If that was the case, women wouldn't have had to fight for their right to contraception, abortion or equality, nor would blacks have had to fight for their rights or any other group who fought for their share of the pie in the '60s and '70s. What we have here is a culture clash between religious conservatives who use the bible as a basis for their morality and secular progressives, who don't. Hence the division we are witness to today. The culture wars aren't over yet, but it seems as if the seculars are winning, in my opinion. Thank goodness.

Really? So adding "one nation under god" to the pledge in 1954 doesn't count as a "religious right" thing? Even though the pledge had existed for over 60 years?
As for Democrats losing their followers, see Lyndon B Johnson.

This is a very common phenomenon - we see it with the percentages identifying as feminist as well. There are huge numbers of people who agree that women should be regarded and treated as equal to men, but deny they are 'feminists'. It's ridiculous, but that's the power of stigma.

I'm a woman and an open atheist but I refuse to call myself a feminist. I don't like the word and I usually don't like the people who call themselves that. Feminism in America feels like it is built off of one great big victim complex. They perpetuate sexism and are clinging to problems that haven't really been problems in years, simply so that they can feel relevant.

This doesn't mean I think women should shut up and sit down. I prefer the idea of humanism. I've been told that we already have humanism and that it doesn't cover the bases that feminism does. I think that's a good thing. A humanist focuses more on quality of life for all people. Not just women but also those men who don't want to see us subjugated. Fight the ignorant and the prejudiced from a platform higher than theirs, don't sink to their level.

Finally, whether or not you would be one of those feminists that I despise isn't something I can know from a comment. I hope you're the kind of person who realizes that men are human beings with feelings just like women are. Years of rigid gender roles didn't only hurt the women. They also hurt every man who didn't adhere to society's notion of what a man was supposed to be. Sexism towards women has been a hot subject for a while. Hopefully, we'll stop turning a blind eye to sexism against men and maybe, by the time, 'feminist,' stops being a repulsive word to me, we won't even need them anymore.

If, to you, 'feminism' is the same as 'misandry', you have misunderstood the term. Feminism is nothing more than the idea that women are people too. Achieving real equality will help both men and women. If you believe this, you are a feminist, even if the term "repulses" you. By refusing to identify as such because other people misappropriated the term, according to you, you are not helping. It does not make you an ally of women fighting for equality. It actually makes you part of the problem. (which I can also conclude from your 'Won't someone think about the men!' argument)

And that you think I'm part of the problem. It doesn't actually change anything. My response to feminism is a response to the feminists I've known. It doesn't seem absurd to you, at all, to call a movement that's supposed to be about equality for both sexes something so obviously centered around just one?

We've achieved something here in the US. Women are able to hold the same jobs as men for the same pay (even more in fields where women are underrepresented), we're able to vote and free to decide our own fates. Only, let's cry misogyny every time some guy flirts with me or notices that I'm a woman. Let's bitch about how women are objectified because game designers give them big boobs and skimpy armor.

There are women in the world who REALLY need feminism. There are places where the balance of power is so out of control that hardcore feminism is necessary if the women who live there are ever going to actually get up in arms about their situations. The US isn't one of those places. We have idiots like Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney and right now we're fighting over our reproductive rights. There are men fighting that fight too, though. Our biggest current, 'battle of the sexes,' and it's not even an actual gender war. Humanism should encompass feminism and (do we not have a term for empowered men?) our men's rights activists.

i dont think women are inferior, just different. and in many ways better than man ... but has anyone wondered about the gender based activities of other animals... for an example why lionesses in a pride seems to serve the lion...clearly there is something there about the laws of nature for an intelligent man to ponder... from what i have seen so far working against the set laws of nature never succeeds.. in fact corrupts it beyond repair...

Dave Niose: Why do you assume and equivocate "religious" with "right"; and by implication "atheist" and "left"? That is a vast oversimplification at best. As an atheist, fiscal conservative and pro-life social libertarian, I am far from "left", and I find your political assumptions patently offensive.

Identity is a conservative concept, it's how we shorthand our life experience and how that with our ancestry has led up to the present moment. The opposite is irony, which is how we organize beliefs by rank of novelty/interest and contextual plausibility. In my experience most non-believers have a high tolerance for irony and lower than usual tolerance for identity, except for the more angsty ones who are new to the idea of challenging authority and prefer to keep their mindset in that state. I don't include Dawkins or Hitchens (who usually are slandered) as "angsty" because they demonstrate a much looser grip on identity and tighter grip on congenial irony than the vast majority of their opponents.

With all due respect to the Christian liberals who take offense to being lumped in with the conservatives, it seems to me and many non-believers that believing Jesus is the only Son of God, whose death meant more than the thieves' at his sides or thousands of others who were crucified (including Spartacus and his legion), seems a very conservative assertion to make. So much that it is insulting to us that such special admiration could be reserved for a man who lived and died 2000 years ago. In literary terms, I never stopped loving the Gospels since my Catholic school upbringing, but give them no more authority (a form of identity) than Lord of the Rings.
You may not identify with Christianity as an "assertion" but compared to the vast amounts of counter-narratives, the sheer vanity of the ideas embedded in it, how unnecessary it is (original sin which he was absolving is now widely accepted as a myth), and the essential claim of salvation only through him--these all amount to a very narrow and conservative religious outlook no matter how socialist you interpret Jesus to be. If he was, which many "historical Jesus" scholars believe, a revolutionary then we should not remember him as the sole Son of God but an esteemed member of good company through history. (John 10:34, 14:12)

I think Dave's article paints an accurate picture, but hope "identity-based" atheism doesn't overcome the initial campaigns based in science and irony. Having to forge new identities for any minority is always a game the left plays to fight right-wing fire with fire, not something that is necessary.

An intriguing article. Enough so that I will have to check my religious views on facebook and possibly update them. Being a self identified agnostic, from Canada now living in Japan. I have rarely had my beliefs challenged in a demeaning way. Both Western Canada and Japan are not overly religious places. Not having to worry about violent or rude challenges of my beliefs has left me fairly tolerant of others beliefs as I believe I should be.

I may not be religious but I do believe religion needs to be given respect. The bloody history of religion is not unlike the bloody history of capitalism, socialism or any other ideology. There are a few people out there who have caused great pain to many under many ideological banners. This pain is caused less by the ideology, in most cases, than the few power hungry corrupt who are able to persuade many non-thinking ignorants.

So as non-believers of all sorts we must think of how we will self identify. Is the Darwin fish really the most appropriate logo for an evolutionist? How much of anything that you know about evolution comes out of anything more than books. Big heavy books just like those used by many others to argue their beliefs. Or should we move to words more appropriate forms of self identification that do not rely on belittling the beliefs of others.

I'm a British Christian - and like many British Christian, have come to belief from conviction not family tradition (my family are atheists).

In Northern Europe,including Britain, the default position of public life is atheism. People are assumed to have no faith, unless they publicly declare one. The Church of England, which is nominally the established Church of the land, simply serves to mark the key events of the nation and has a very broad ecumenical and interfaith base. Almost as many people attend a mosque at the weekend as attend the Church of England.

Political life here is not marked by faith - if a candidate in a British election declares themselves to be a believer, they are listened to politely, but are more likely to lose votes over what is regarded in most circles as a slight eccentricity.

And how do I, as a Christian, feel about it? It makes me brave. I would rather live in a country where people were honest about their faith, and where I am required to justify and reason my faith through with others. It makes me a better, more disciplined Christian as in church I am generally surrounded by other, real Christians and not just those who attend because it's the respectable thing to do.

It forces Christianity to remember its roots - as a force for change and social justice, as a light for the world and not a bloated, self-satisfied moral majority. I would love to win more souls for my faith, but at least in Britain I can do so with a degree of intellectual honesty.

As an atheist, I can tell you that I can respect your position as you've stated it. Although I disagree with you for many reasons, at least you say you are willing to have an open discourse and don't expect special, hands off, treatment. No matter what anyone says, that is to be respected. Thank you.

As noble as you attempt to come across what your'e saying is that you believe in a deity.
Not just a deity, a personal deity that created man in "his image" in this infinite (as far as we know at this time) universe.
Immaculate conceptions, virgin births, resurrections, 2nd comings and this crazy list goes on and on...
And throughout human history (which spans tens of thousands of years) there have been many fake beliefs that slowly dwindled as will this silly Christian religion. It will be on the self with Zeus and the rest of ancient myths.
And if humans exist 5 thousand years from now (I believe) they will look at all our accomplishments in understanding our known universe and be perplexed as to why so many people held on to these primitive, self-centered beliefs in 2000's.

No deities and man NOT being the center of the universe does NOT make this experience any less beautiful or miraculous.
And note to people of this faith. Just because someone does not have faith in some silly man-made religion does not necessarily mean they rule out "intelligent design". Christians really think their beliefs are intrinsically connected to the idea of intelligent design which is so insane in itself.

If there was one AND ONLY ONE religion that ALL cultures since the beginning of time agreed on you people of faith would have something to stand on.
If there was a personal god that created people why would he leave us guessing all these years?
It wouldn't be that hard to turn the WHOLE world around. Come on God, really show us that you exist so these believers can remove the word “faith” from their rhetoric.

I stepped on your article by chance, while reading Peter Gray's wonderful (the word is weak) blog "freedom to learn" on PT.

I recently discovered those incredible facts about US religiosity and such from other sources (I'm european, originally fr, and never moved outside Europe). It is terrifying to me that such a super-power is ruled that way, under such principles (not that I support in any way the manners we are ruled). I also discovered a public debate on whether one can trust non-believers morally.

Huh? To me this sounds like nonsense (absurd), or even counter-sense. Morality is a human faculty just like intellect, empathy, reason, intuition, affectivity or... spirituality. Believers of the kind of religions who also want to rule the moral field of human life accept or are forced not to exert their moral sense, instead to follow externally imposed, arbitrary rules. This is similar to beliefs about facts of reality: either one uses their reason, or accepts an a priori belief, or a mix of both.
Thus, I guess, one should instead wonder whether it is at all possible to trust believers (of such "invasive" religions) in moral affairs.

No politician would ever declare him/herself an atheist and have any hope of election. But this extends to most people's work as well, such a stance would likely have a negative impact on advancement and promotions and might even cause one to be let go. This is likely even a bigger reason than fear of social ostracism that adults don't declare themselves non-religious. Even if you're self-employed and run a business or do contract work, you'd likely not want that tag attached to you.

On the other hand, what better way to get elected, get promoted or land that big contract than to wear your piety on your sleeve. So it's likely the 81.6% figure is inflated. There are a lot of hypocrites out there, even within the church.

What is the idea behind no god. what proof against evidence on the existence of god. because people are starving/been killed/been inhumanly treated. if that's the case, we misunderstand the meaning covered under the word GOD.. basically it means the entity who holds the power over everything.. and we have no right to ask why about anything.. pathetic isn't it... like it or not that's the way it is. for more along this line we will need to examine religions.

Will the non believers agree that a ship can travel without a navigator to a distant destination. Or the non believers argue that the universe it self MAY be self aware. or organisms evolve themselves to become better organisms. if so why are these organisms dying generations after generation.

if any nonbeliever can support their thesis without here says and MAYBEs i would like to know.

Intelligent rational people using maybe to describe a phenomena we have and may never have a grip on is better than religions quoting scriptures thousands of years old the were edited during The Dark Ages. Religions do nothing but shout "truth" and have absolutely no evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof!

When non-believers make fun of religion they're generally referring to immaculate conceptions, virgin births, resurrections, 2nd comings and this crazy list goes on and on...
And throughout human history (which spans tens of thousands of years) there have been many fake beliefs that slowly dwindled as will this silly Christian religion.